AN OPEN HOCKEY FANTASTICAL BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE REVIEW: THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Maybe it's just me being all old and cynical, but I simply didn't love The Dark Knight, the newest Batman movie that everyone is raving about. I'd like to say it's the most overrated movie of the year, but maybe I shouldn't be rating movies like this at all. It's obviously not aimed at me, since I'm neither a teenager or a comic book fan. I thought at the very least I'd enjoy this as a movie fan, but it wasn't satisfying even on that level. Basically, it was a huge disappointment. And screw it, this is my blog so here's my review.

When Tim Burton's Batman was released in 1989, his dark vision and the use of Jack Nicholson in the role of The Joker, it was universally loved by critics and audiences alike; today it seems it has lost a bit of its luster due to the exceedingly campy sequels that followed it. Critics are even retrospectively proclaiming Jack's Joker to be overacting nonsense, which really just means that we've now finally realized that Jack is merely acting like himself in every movie (see: The Departed, Something's Gotta Give, Mars Attacks!). When the Batman franchise was given a makeover in 2005 via the reinvention/rehash/regurgitation Batman Begins, it was hailed as a return to form for the Caped Crusader. I admit, I haven't seen it but I can't imagine it would have enhanced my enjoyment of this latest endeavour. If anything, this movie should have been more satisfying, as the back story was out of the way leaving nothing but storytelling and action.

However, it just seemed like a jam-packed mess to me, leaving me with a feeling akin to being pummeled in the dark for nearly 3 hours. While Heath Ledger was effectively creepy and deranged as The Joker, I can't say that any of the other actors stood out (hey, just like the previously mentioned Batman movie), especially Christian Bale and his scratchy "I just gargled glass" Batman voice. Aaron Eckhart's (as D.A. Harvey Dent) transformation into Two Face was treated as if a switch was flipped, and thus not really believable. Also not believeable or emotionally impacting was the love triangle between Dent, Bruce Wayne and Maggie Gyllenhaal's Brenda Dawes character. I used to like Gary Oldman, but here he had two acting modes, murmuring or screaming; meanwhile, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were wasted only being used sparingly as affable, smiling old guys.

I know, this is a big fantastical, exploderiffic summer blockbuster movie, so I should forget about the acting and focus on the other stuff like action and storyline--but even those elements left me scratching my head. There were no real jawdropping car chases or action sequences (minus one nifty trick with a tractor trailer), and the jump cuts and low lighting during fight sequences made it difficult to follow. During the entire movie, each scene followed the next so quickly with no establishing shots and little coherence, and the scenes themselves were edited so tightly, that half the time I thought I missed a few lines of dialogue or action. At one point I thought that maybe half the movie was explained in the first movie, or hopefully would be explained later (what did they go to Hong Kong for?), but that never happened. I thought that if I stuck with it, it would start to make sense and build to an effective ending, but it got more convoluted as it went on. And on. And on. No, it never "dragged" per se, it was just relentless. It was as if director Christopher Nolan was throwing expensive set pieces in your face with little regard for how they would propel the plot. After one and a half hours, I had had enough . . . and then realized it still had an hour to go.

David Denby's review in the New Yorker (one of the only 5% negative reviews on RT) sums it up nicely:

". . . this movie is grim and jammed together. The narrative isn't shaped
coherently to bring out contrasts and build toward a satisfying climax. "The
Dark Knight" is constant climax; it's always in a frenzy, and it goes on
forever. Nothing is prepared for, and people show up and disappear without
explanation; characters are eliminated with a casual nod."

Personally, I can't recall the last comic book movie adaptation that I've enjoyed. While Spiderman was entertaining, I almost felt like I forced myself into liking it, but looking back it was just a novelty and I have no desire to ever watch it again. (The novelty wore off with the exceedingly silly Spiderman 2, and I don't plan on sitting through Spiderman 3, or 4, when it inevitably comes out). The newest attempt at the Man of Steel story Superman Returns was brought nothing new to the table, and I still think the casting of Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man, which I haven't seen, is questionable at best. As for recent big screen adaptations of The Hulk (twice), The X-Men and Fantastic Four, none of them have interested me. I officially call this superhero trend over when Seth Rogen stars as the title character in The Green Lantern. (Yes, that's actually going to happen.)

While The Dark Knight had some well-crafted scenes and I respected the overall attempt at a more realistic, dark tone, I honestly didn't think it was anything special. Since the general consensus for this movie has been excellent, I guess it's just not my thing. Either way this is officially the last comic book movie I willingly see in the theater, unless they make the new and improved version 18 years from now, which seems inevitable.

Grade: C

JONESING FOR SOME MOVIE ENTERTAINMENT

It's finally here!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will be in theaters on May 22. I have already declared my geekdom for all things Indy, as you might remember. While others might soak up every last drop of news and reviews, I refuse to read anything before seeing it in the theater because I want to go into it fresh and without any preconceptions. Because of the worldwide interwebs, everything gets spoiled and you can't possibly avoid hearing bits and pieces about it (NY Daily News gave it 4 out of 5 stars! The Onion is already making pithy jokes!) but I'm going to try my hardest to filter it all out, akin to shutting my eyes so my face doesn't melt.

So what exactly is a crystal skull? I'm glad you asked. Allegedly, they are pre-Columbian Mesoamerican (Mayan or Aztec) artifacts made of clear or milky quartz carved into the shape of a skull, purported by some to have paranormal powers. Several skulls have been found that were thought to have been authentic, but have later been determined to be of more modern origin (the two main ones, British Museum Skull and the Mitchell-Hedges Skull have dubious backstories). However, I predict that ace archaeologist Dr. Jones will find a real one with psychic healing powers that gives anyone who comes into contact with it eternal happiness, provides the Secrets of the Universe, and as a helpful side effect, eradicates Communism from the planet (not necessarily in that order).

Regardless, it will be impossible to watch this movie without thinking of those that came before it. However, I'm going to be realistic; as I said before, while it can't possibly beat the unrelenting fun of the original Raiders, I hope it will at least be better than the Temple of Doom.

What will today's teenagers think of this latest movie? I'm guessing that because of its nostalgic appeal and old fashioned adventure style that it's not going to be as embraced by that demographic as readily as the first two movies were. It doesn't have the smash 'em up CGI action of a Transformers, the comic book badassery of Batman or Iron Man, or the mystical magic of a Narnia or Harry Potter. However, when I was that age I ate this shit up; fittingly, my 9 and 11 year old nieces were intrigued by Raiders when I turned it on during USA's marathon a few weekends ago, so there is hope for them. Though, I would prefer it if the youngsters weren't in the theater bothering me this weekend. I don't want anything to get between me and my enjoyment of Indiana Jones, dammit. If I had a lawn, I'd yell at them to stay off of it.

Here's the trailer for the movie, which is pretty much all I know about it.



(What? No Nazis? I guess Cold War Commies are a fitting substitution.)

TRAILER: "TROPIC THUNDER" (2008)

I have to admit, Ben Stiller has not done much for me lately; he kind of lost me after the completely unnecessary Meet The Fockers. However, this (red line/R-rated) trailer for Tropic Thunder, a new action/comedy he wrote/directed, is pretty damn funny.

CINOSTALGIA: "ALIEN" (1979)

Welcome to a new feature here at the OH blog: CINOSTALGIA.

(Yeah, that's a horrible name but that's what I'm calling it until a better one is found. Deal with it.)

In case it wasn't implicit, CINEMA + NOSTALGIA = CINOSTALGIA. The purpose of this feature is to discuss movies that may have gotten lost in the annals of time and deserve reconsideration. Hopefully, these are also movies that hold up upon repeated viewings, unlike every crap summer blockbuster currently being shoved/marketed in my face destined to have a shelf life of a few weeks. Additionally, they need not be obscure films, just ones either overlooked or taken for granted for one reason or another.

Directed by Ridley Scott and released in 1979, Alien is by no means an obscure movie. However, it has been overshadowed by its flashier sequel Aliens, and its reputation has been sullied by by-products of diminishing quality like Alien Resurrection, and the pointless string of Alien v. Predator movies that have been cranked out in recent years.

Among the common critiques I hear in our current no-attention span society about movies like this are: "it's boring", "it's not scary", "the effects are lame", and "you never see the alien!". But just spend a few hours in the dark with this movie and I'm sure it will scare the pants off you. The fact that you barely get to see the alien makes it all the more terrifying.

Here's the fantastic iconic original trailer for the movie (from the great Trailer Addict):



(I don't know when movies started using "taglines" but, "In space no one can hear you scream" is the first one I remember, and it's a classic.)

This movie gives you a real sense of isolation and dread, something that slick new sci-fi movies don't spend enough time doing, so when the alien finally appears in the claustrophobic spaceship it's truly disturbing.

As I was planning to write up this entry, I noticed the Onion AV Club stole my idea. No matter, since it's a great movie and it's worth the CINOSTALGIA. (That name is growing on me.)

MOVIE REVIEWS: "KING OF KONG: A FISTFUL OF QUARTERS" (2007)

Since today is Grand Theft Auto IV release day, I felt it was a good time to mention one of the best documentaries about videogames that is likely to ever be made. I watched King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters last night, and it was absolutely fascinating, even moreso since I'm a videogame fan and about the same age as these fanatics.

Focusing on a self-taught Donkey Kong expert (the humble Steve Wiebe) aiming to challenge the current world record holder (the arrogant Billy Mitchell), this movie was both interesting and frightening at the same time. It shows a whole classic arcade videogame subculture that I knew existed, but I wasn't prepared for how obsessive and competitive they are.



Interesting note (to me anyway): I've actually been to that Funspot Arcade in Weirs Beach, NH as a kid, so I might have run into one of these weirdos before.

From the Twin Galaxies "referees" who oversee the validity of the scores to the banker who retired at age 30 and moved to New Hampshire to devote his life to playing video games, it was priceless stuff. Billy even had people sent to Steve's house to check the machine in his garage to see if the board was "fraudulent". I simply can't believe anyone would be that dickish about a Donkey Kong record.

"No matter what I say, it draws controversy. It's sort of like the abortion issue. If you're for it, you're a sonofagun; if you're against it, you're a sonofagun. I'm not God, I don't have all the answers, so I have to be careful how I share my opinions." - Billy Mitchell

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S A FREAKING VIDEO GAME! Seriously, I think this guy is totally insane.

Regardless, it was a very entertaining documentary, even for the non-videogame enthusiast. But for someone like me who has gone through rolls upon rolls of quarters playing these games in the 80s, it was completely mesmerizing.

(Oh, and after seeing a guy play Marble Madness with his foot, I'm never playing one of those trackball games again.)

Clips courtesy of Picturehouse Films.
Donkey Kong (Online Flash Version)
King Of Kong - Trailer

RANDOM YOUTUBERY: WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

I've been saying for years that "Knocked Up" would have benefited from a reduced amount of Seth Rogen...no wait; I've been saying that it would have benefited from a reduced amount of Judd Apatow, meh, it was crap either way.

Anyway: If they had avoided Rogen and gone with Michael Cera, I think I could have liked the movie more (although it still would have been a Judd Apatow production). Unfortunately there were apparent creative differences between Cera and Judd (and it doesn't look like Cera got along with Katherine Heigl much after this little incident).

Moderately NSFW language unless your boss likes f-bombs, in which case it's completely SFW.



Who's...hey can anyone find...who's directing this movie? does anyone know?
You know what, Mike, why don't you direct yourself?

You know what? I'm fucking tired of your bullshit - you're a fucking asshole. Your show isn't even on the air anymore!

Mark this day in your books. I wrote about Judd Apatow without hate.

[EDIT: you didn't think I could make it through an entire post without some Apatow-hate: Apparently "Apatow" has been adjectified apatovian made an appearance in Slate. Fuck Judd afterall]

THERE WILL BE HATE

I believe that Daniel Plainview hates you already.



"I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people . . . there are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to earn enough money so I can get away from everyone." - from There Will Be Blood (2008).

That might be the new mantra for this blog.

When you watch Daniel Day-Lewis sitting next to the fresh grave of a man he just killed, drinking himself into oblivion from a whiskey flask, you get the feeling he's done it before. (What I mean is that he's done it to prepare for the role, which is perfectly okay.) In There Will Be Blood, he chews up the scenery like a post-pub Irish breakfast at 4 AM. And when various characters during the movie attempt to wake him up as he's passed out on the floor, I'm not sure if they're screaming "DANIEL!" at the character or the actor. Yes, it's a powerful Oscar-worthy performance unfortunately surrounded by a weak script, which Danny-boy punches up by merely repeating every line twice for effect: say a line, pause, SAY IT AGAIN LOUDER AND MORE EMPHATICALLY. And If There Would Have Been Editing, they could have trimmed the fat and made a taut, tense, and interesting 2 hour long movie. (Oh, that's right, it's directed by Paul Thomas Anderson who is practically incapable of making a short movie.) So no, I didn't really like this movie.

I will not go bowling with that man.

I WILL NOT GO BOWLING WITH THAT MAN!

U2 FOR TUESDAY: "U2 3D" MOVIE REVIEW

(I was going to post this yesterday, appropriately on St. Patrick's Day, but never got around to it. Such is the nature of this blog.)

I saw the U2 3D movie at the local IMAX Theater over the weekend, billed as the first live-action 3D concert movie ever made. In a word, it was phenomenal. The combination of the stunning 3D effects, the incredible sound, and the massive IMAX screen made it a totally immersing experience. Add to this the uncanny ability of a band like U2 to make even the most massive stadium feel intimate, and they've created an incredibly enjoyable concert movie that is a visual and a technological masterpiece.

I've seen U2 in concert six times (more than any other band) dating back to the 1985 Unforgettable Fire and 1987 Joshua Tree tours, and as recently as the 2005 Vertigo tour, and they have never failed to put on a fantastic show. It was during three shows on the South American leg of the latter that this concert footage was shot, and the high definition film (nicely transferred to IMAX format) contains 90 minutes of highlights of the band performing on stage with zero filler. Smoothly interspersing shots of U2 and the enthusiastic crowd, it gives the viewer a sense of what attending an actual U2 concert is like, and you've got better than the best seats in the house.

THE 3D EFFECTS. I'm not sure exactly how the stereoscopic cameras used by the 3ality Digital team work, but when the finished product is viewed (using giant, dorky glasses that even Bono's "The Fly" character would reject) the result is stunning. The members of U2 really do jump off the screen and seem to extend beyond its borders during the concert. And I know it sounds corny, but when the camera angle is placed right above the shoulders of the concertgoers, you actually feel like you're sitting in the crowd. Overall the 3D effect gives a remarkable illusion of depth, especially as the crowd bounces, waves their arms, and holds their cameras up in the air.

THE SOUND. The IMAX theater quite possibly has the best sound system of any theater I've ever been in. You feel the bass thump before you even enter the room, the music and ambient crowd noise is dynamically reproduced, and the way the directional speakers are mixed to follow the action on the screen is very affecting. At one point during "Sunday Bloody Sunday", the crowd sound is completely removed, focusing on just the band and Bono's vocals in the front speakers (as he walks towards the viewer) and Edge's vocals in the rear--the result is chill inducing. They even isolate some audience members' reactions and singing in spots to add a personal touch.

THE VISUALS. The compiled concert footage is shot from every conceivable angle: from right in front of the performers, numerous positions in the crowd, above Larry's drum kit, at the end of Adam's bass guitar neck, right in Bono's face. But it never feels gimmicky, and is edited to flow rather well with each song, unlike most headache-inducing jump-cut music videos. During "The Fly" they even added some of the words and graphics that appear on the video screens in the stadium to the visual mix, and they pop dazzingly before your eyes. I'll say one more thing: for a band that's 30 years into its career, the four members are remarkably well preserved and don't look bad at all (in other words, the opposite of the Stones).

Even if you're not a U2 fan I think you should check out this thrilling, first-of-its-kind live-action 3D film experience, as it doesn't miss a note. (Really, you have to go see it, I hear it's not doing well.) It actually made me want to go to another concert--as long as it's taking place in the comfort of a theater, that is. I have a feeling that a lot more concert films are going to be made this way.

Songlist: "Vertigo", "Beautiful Day", "New Year's Day", "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own", "Love And Peace Or Else", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Bullet The Blue Sky", "Miss Sarajevo", "Pride (In The Name Of Love)", "Where The Streets Have No Name", "One", "The Fly", "With Or Without You" (end credits - "Yahweh").

Fan reviews on official U2 site

WHO DO YOU HAVE TO KILL TO GET SERVICE AROUND HERE?

I'm pretty sure I have no idea where I'm going with this post. I was absolutely livid about something earlier today that I seem to have forgotten...Yep, I'm going to have a heart attack at 40...I can feel it coming...Let's hope it's minor and it will allow to change my life, maybe I'll "discover" God, worthless bastard that he is...Oh come on, does that shock you, with all the vile shit that we spew on here, that I would go after the big guy? Oh course if he does exist, I basically just guaranteed that my pending heart attack will not be minor...oh well I'm far enough to the atheist side of agnostic not to worry too much about it.

Right...so I hate marketing and marketers. The new "in" phrase in France is: "Increase your purchasing power." It started maybe 6 months or a year ago, with one store talking about your pouvoir d'achat...It's probably all Sarkozy's fault. Anyway, I am not an economist in the least bit, but this bugs the living shit out of me...Purchasing power isn't something that "increases" because the supermarket decreases the price of toilet paper...Purchasing power is (for me at least, a non economist) a measure of your ability to buy all the things that you need in a given time...Reducing the price of a plasma screen actually decreases your purchasing power because you can now buy less bread because you just took out a 4-year loan on a 52" Sony. There's this little thing called inflation, and unless you're getting really nice wage increases at work, your purchasing power is damn lucky to hold even. I hate marketers for confirming my deepest cynicism about people, 'cause let's face it; if more and more places are using it now in France it must work.

Movies suck...As you may know, I expected so much more from "No Country for Old Men." But, whatever...So now that Danny Lewis has won his very own bronze plated statuette, I figured I would watch this epic film of love and loss and whatever the fuck happened in California in the early part of the 20th century. Yeah well...Fuck Hollywood right in their Hugo Boss pants. I swear, they couldn't write a movie that I didn't hate if they had to (yes, motherfuckers, that is a challenge). It's not that "There Will Be Blood" is bad...it's just that it's...just...so...I don't know...ordinary? Without DDL this thing is standard Hollywood crap...with DDL...well it's standard Hollywood crap with an exceptional lead actor. I have a question: How come if I cut and paste a book and then throw my name onto it, it's call "plagiarism" but when they do it in Hollywood it's call "Best Adapted Screenplay." Fuck them all.

On a high note, I'm almost done with the written-word version of "No Country for Old Men." For their benefit, the Coens' did do a very good job at keeping movie close to the book, but the book is just so much better...The conversation seems more "real" in the book whereas in the movie it's just actors talking like that...I guess it's because, even though I see the movie characters when I read the book, it's not the movie characters who speak in my head...It's the book. It's hard to explain, but I guess I'm concluding that I really just prefer to read.

And that brings me to my final point: We tend to spew an awful lot of vitriol hate on this blog, but when something goes well, it deserves to be pointed out. I recently ordered the aforementioned "No Country for Old Men" (as well as the excellent "Our Dumb World" from The Onion) from Amazon UK because I was avoiding Amazon FR due to their legal problems with the French government (in retrospect, I obviously should have ordered from Amazon FR to tell the French to shove it up Carla Bruni's anorexic ass...oh well). The order was supposed to arrive a week later...which it didn't do. I contacted Amazon customer service and they told me that they would take responsibility for any delivery issues, but to wait a few more days to see if the French Poste could figure it out...they couldn't and I recontacted Amazon...Even before customer service recontacted me, I got a shipping confirmation from the automated webthingy saying my order had been shipped with no charges. Then I got an email from them with this line:

If the original package should arrive afterwards, please keep the items with our compliments, as the cost of return of the package is prohibitively expensive in this case. Perhaps you would like to donate it to a charity in your area if you feel it would be appropriate to do so.

Sure, this is probably standard practice, but it surprised the hell out of me. I assume/hope that Amazon FR would do the same thing - it's the same group - and this completely convinces me that Amazon is where I'm going to be buying my books in Europe for a long time.

I still haven't received the original package (I doubt I will, I'm pretty sure some son of a French postman just got new books for English class), but if I do, rest assured I'll do the right thing and put them on eBay immediately, or not. I'd probably just donate them to the American association here.

'ARRESTED' MOVIE IN DEVELOPMENT?

No sooner did I post the pilot of Arrested Development to kick off Jeffuary did this little news tidbit arrive: Jeffrey Tambor said on XM Radio's Ron & Fez Show that plans for an AD movie are in the works. Jason Bateman is also very interested, and producers Mitch Hurwitz and Ron Howard are attempting to round of the rest of the show's cast members. They already have an idea for the storyline, which is the first good reason I've heard yet to end the writers' strike.

If past performance is an indication of future results, it will garner a 92% Tomatometer rating from critics while making $92,000 at the box office. But with the state of comedy movies today (Meet The Spartans, Norbit, Adam Sandler steadfastly refusing to retire), this is refreshing news and obviously incredible news for the fans of the show like me. And since all three seasons are on DVD, you have no excuse not to catch up. (I really want Season Three for my birthday.)

CAN JEFFUARY GET ANY BETTER? I HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT IT CANNOT!

STEVE HOLT!

Photo courtesy of Fox Entertainment

0% GOOD!

We have our first 0% movie of 2008! That's right. Out of 55 reviews, NOBODY has recommended the cinematic turd entitled "One Missed Call".

As you may know, January is the annual dumping ground for bad movies. I should clarify: bad movies come out every week, but these are the ones that Hollywood knows are bad, AND don't think they can make any money on, and that equals fucking horrible. And sweet bastard, the slate of movies coming out this month sure do look atrocious. Someone (not me) should go see all of them and write a book.

Infesting a theater near you in January:

First Sunday. I've never thought Tracy Morgan was funny. Sit through the trailer for this and try to argue otherwise.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. I guess it could be worse, it could be "Transporter 3".

Cloverfield. "Blair Witch" meets "Independence Day"--the hybrid no one asked for! Once again, please stop beating up the Statue of Liberty, you Hollywood assholes.

Mad Money. Chick flick alert! I bet Queen Latifah says something "sassy" in this one, am I right? Diane Keaton really needs to stop making movies, period. I wouldn't watch this even if Jim Cramer was yelling at them the whole time.

Meet the Spartans. Approximately 0% funny!

How She Move. Is there a verb missing here? Maybe a letter dropped off the marquee?

Rambo. It's over, Johnny. No, really, I checked.

Untraceable. Unwatchable!

27 Dresses. EXTREME TO THE MAX CHICK FLICK ALERT!

February ain't much better:

Jumper starring muthafuckin' Samuel L. Jackson. By my calculations, he's made approximately 1 good movie and has just coasted since then.

The Eye: Jessica Alba is blind, so she doesn't know how hot she is!

Postal. Uwe Boll's magnum opus, as if he could even spell that.

Witless Protection. Fuck Larry the Cable Guy and upgrade to FiOS.

Fool's Gold. What is this, "Romancing The Stone"? Who greenlighted another McConaughey/Hudson movie? Are they the new Crosby/Hope?

The Hottie & the Nottie. The three words that strikes fear in the hearts of moviegoers: Starring Paris Hilton.

And now I've lost the will to continue typing.

THE COEN BROTHERS AREN'T THAT GOOD, ARE THEY?

I watched No Country for Old Men last night. I'll try to avoid spoiling the movie for those of you who haven't seen it yet, and plan to, but you may want to avoid the whole post if you don't want to know anything about it.

First the good:
*Javier Bardem gave the best performance I've seen in a long long time. I haven't seen anything else that he was in (to my knowledge), but he was so good in this movie. He should win the Oscar for best supporting actor (even though it was basically a lead actor part, but whatever)
*Visually this movie is stunning. The shots of Texas desert are just beautiful.
*I like movies that are deep, dark and cold without the happy "the bad guys are dead, the good guys ride into the sunset with the pretty girl" endings. More than one reviewer called this movie nihilistic.

And the not so good:
I'm going to call this the "Knocked Up syndrome" from here on in - the movie doesn't live up to its own hype. If it's got a Rotten Tomatoes rating of over 90% (and it's not some French art house clusterfuck), I expect the movie to knock me off my feet. Silly me.

(This is probably where you should stop reading if you don't want to know too much about the movie)
The problem with this movie is that it is too movie-ish for me. Let's see if I can describe what I mean; I guess I got the feeling too much that the Coens were just writing a movie to get reviews of being "black" and "nihilistic" and "gritty." It's just a movie pretending to be these things and at no point during this thing did I manage to get myself "into" the movie. With all the plot-twists and main characters dying, I just came to expect it by the end, because that was the type of movie that this was. I understand that the Coens stuck close to the book, which I have not read, but this is my big criticism-It's a hackneyed version of a true film noir. Or maybe I'm just so cynical, that I watch movies like this with saying "it didn't make me feel anything." Realism doesn't exist in movies for me because they are the epitome of fake (except for Al Gore or Michael Moore productions - that is real, people).

One of the main characters died at a certain point and I think this was the turning point of the movie. It was overly downplayed to the point where you ask if said character really had any bearing on the movie at all (which he did - for 3/4 of the movie). It was at that point that I truly felt the manipulative powers of the Coen Bros coming through.

The ending wasn't anything spectacular. I won't go into details, but I had read more than one critique about the "excellent, plot twisting ending." Did these people see the same movie as me? It offered no surprises to me.

And one more thing...Does anyone know if they purposefully use fake-looking dogs for scenes where the animals are dead and/or dying? Do they do this so as not to offend the audience? We can make life-like blood, and show someone stitching himself up from a gunshot wound, but heaven-forbid we make it look like a real dog died...

Ugh. Anyway, it was a fine movie, but not as good as I thought it would be.

IN MY DREAMS YOU'RE BLOWING ME . . .

. . . some kisses."



That might be the line of the year. That's one of the double entendres from the song "Let's Duet", featured in Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, starring John C. Reilly and Jenna Fischer.

Although this looks like a one-joke movie, it's a funny joke. This rips apart the Hollywood conventions shoved down our throats by biopics such as Ray and Walk The Line, and it's about damn time. I cannot tell you how many times I screamed at the screen, "That never happened!" during those two fake, melodramatic movies.

Here's a clip from the movie, where Dewey meets the Beatles.



"Let's Duet" from Walk Hard [YouTube]
Dewey Meets The Beatles (Walk Hard) [YouTube]

WEEKLY TOP 10: YOUR SKEETIN' HEART

10. This has been one cah-ray-zee NCAA football season, am I right? (Hence the need to give the word "crazy" an extra syllable.) On Saturday, #1 Missouri lost to Oklahoma (which everyone saw coming) and West Virgina, being #2, was required by law to lose to Pitt. And with Ohio State and LSU chosen to meet in the Big Game sometime in mid-January, people are whining about the BCS bowl system! Shocking! Just put the frigging bowl games on and I'll watch them. Anyway, screw the BCS (British Cardiovascular Society), they haven't helped me once.

CapitalOne Bowl Week preview coming soon!

9. Stephen Colbert will be doing "The Colbert Report" live at the Upright Citizens Brigade theater in NYC at 6:30 PM tonight. Man, I wish I had tickets. Regardless, I've been talking about it for years, so I think it's time I saw a comedy show down there. (Whatever happened to the Rascals Comedy Club in the Palisades Mall? Did it ever open? They put a sign up, and that's it?)

8. The New York Times wrote an article on bourbon and didn't even mention Booker's? BLASPHEMY! I guess they didn't taste anything above 101 proof, which is really is a shame: everyone should feel the glorious burn that is Booker's. The top bourbons they chose (Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve 20-Year-Old ($99), Vintage 17-Year-Old ($54), Knob Creek ($20)) must be pretty damn good, because according to them "Maker's Mark didn't come close". Well then.

7. My favorites from the Tim Tebow Facts: "Tim Tebow can divide by zero" and "Tim Tebow CAN believe it's not butter". I submitted this one: "When Tim Tebow stares at the sun, the sun has to look away".

6. "Funeral for a Fiend" was the funniest Simpsons episode I've seen in a long time, definitely the best of the season. I just really like what Kelsey Grammar does with the Sideshow Bob character. Of course, FOX in their infinite wisdom decided that while every show is in hiatus because of the writers' strike, this Sunday was a good time to show a repeat.

5. The NFL claims to want to "give more football to the fans", but this is clearly not the case. Not only did very few get to see Green Bay get beat by Dallas on Thursday, but they've also eliminated those great Saturday afternoon games, and instead give us one Saturday night matchup. Memo to all sports league commissioners: don't insult my intelligence, just say it's a business decision and move on. My favorite description of the NFL Network: "24 hours of live football, 8736 hours of filler".

BLOGNOSTICATION ALERT: The New England Patriots are going to go undefeated this season, including the playoffs. That's 19-0. Congratulations, Pats!

4. Two new HD channels were added to Cablevision this week: HGTV and Food Network. I can't wait for CSPAN2-HD and Game Show HD, since the latter will allow me to view those "Match Game '79" episodes the way God (and Charles Nelson Reilly) intended.

3. I decided that I would rather go to happy hour early on Friday than attend my company holiday party. Does that make me an alcoholic? No, I think it's just common sense. There was no place to sit when I actually bothered to attend last year, so screw them.

2. After seeing someone post this online, this song was in my head all day. It's Nick Rivers "Skeet Surfin'", from the 1984 movie Top Secret!, one of the most underrated and overlooked comedies of all time.



Nick Rivers & Tammy Wynette "Your Skeetin' Heart" cracks me up every time. The East German National Anthem is priceless too: "Hail, Hail East Germany, Land of Vine And Grape, Land Where You'll Regret, Any Try To Escape!"

1. When you type in "BETTMAN SUCKS" into Google, the first image that comes up in the search is the header for this blog! We're really going places. Oh, and Bettman sucks.

JAMES MANGOLD IS A PRICK

I thought I'd change it up a bit for the title. But, either way, it should come up in a search. Evidently, this is what a hollywood type does when he isn't 't busy handing out awards to other members. He googles himself. And if the search turns up words from those of us not in the self-adulation society, he corrects us. Something along the lines of he was for the 350 park rangers, before he was against them, or some shit like that. Funny thing that "was taken out of context" now means "said something stupid that I wish would just go away".

Quick note on Joe Torre - fuck off. 5 million dollars is insulting? YOU are insulting. You were a gigantic loser before you became the Yankees manager. Then for 5 years you filled out the lineup card and watched the largest payroll in baseball do what it should do, win. Did you hit a 3 run homer in game 4 against the Braves? Did you strikeout 15 Mariners in the LCS? Did you get a pinch hit single against the Mets in extra innings? You did none of these things. The only thing I can remember you directly affecting is the 2004 series against the Red Sox, in which you're feeble managerial skills were exposed, leading to the most embarrassing moment in the history of the organization, maybe all of sports. I'm not blaming you for the loss, and you get no credit for the wins. You are not the reason the NY Yankees won and you are not the reason they lost. You were along for the ride. And you got rich beyond belief for it. Now you want hard working people who make 50K a year to feel sorry for you because the Yankees didn't "respect" you and ONLY offered 5 million. Gee fucking whiz, how's a guy gonna live on that, when he's only made 19 million the last 3 years. Fuck you. Get lost. Maybe there is some baseball league in Hawaii that needs a manager who will pitch the arms off of good young men. We don't need you here. Go catch for the Mets or something. I hear they need a guy.

As Jeff said, the definitive directors cut of Blade Runner is a visual and sonic masterpiece, even if Ridley Scott gets it wrong by making Deckard a replicant. P K Dick wasn't trying to fool you, the point is, DNA does not make you human.

THOUGHTS ON "BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT"

It's raining like a bitch here right now, a biblical, post-apocalyptic kind of rain. Naturally, this reminded me of the classic sci-fi movie "Blade Runner". It rains constantly in Ridley Scott's bleak vision of Los Angeles in 2019, a grim world made even more bleak while watching, and listening to, the glorious 25th anniversary edition of "Blade Runner: The Final Cut", which I had the privilege to see at the Ziegfeld Theater in Manhattan this week.



I first saw "Blade Runner" when I was 12 in a tiny 300 seat theater with one speaker in the middle of the screen accompanied by a typically flaky second-run 35MM print. After being weaned on sci-fi as a young lad through "Alien" and "Star Wars", and being a huge fan of "Raiders of the Lost Ark", I enjoyed this movie, intrigued by its dark vision and meticulously crafted world. But this viewing for the movie's 25th anniversary was an entirely eye-opening, and eye-gouging, experience.

One of the first major films to get the "director's cut" treatment (back in 1992), this current version is allegedly the final "definitive" version, to be released in several DVD editions in December. It was worth the wait, as the digital restoration of this 1982 movie is stellar; if it weren't for the fact that Harrison Ford looked like he was 19, I would have sworn it was made yesterday. The special effects and production design stood out where it seemed muted and muddy before. Additionally, the remastered sound was simply stunning, from the throbbing Vangelis score to the soaking downpours, which the enormous, red velvet ensconced, 1100+ seat theater's speaker system was able to reproduce with aplomb. This was how the movie deserved to be seen and heard, but alas, it wasn't initially given the chance.

Early test audiences were confused by the plot, and a spoonfed narration by the main protagonist, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) was added (read purposely badly hoping it would be rejected during post-production--it wasn't). Additionally, an ending was tacked on featuring the happy couple literally driving off into the sunset, in one of the silliest and cliched Hollywood endings ever concocted. It was almost like the edited for seniors version of "Gone With The Wind" from The Simpsons: "Frankly Scarlet, I love you! Let's remarry." ("Didn't that movie have used to have a war in it?")



Although the "fixed" version did fairly well in its first weekend ($6.1 million, which would be considered a failure in today's economy), it soon became apparent that moviegoers were expecting more feel-good fun popcorn fare like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "E.T", and it lost money in the end (which I'm sure Mr. Scott has made back with DVD sales and $11 tickets).

SPOILER ALERT! Deckert is a replicant, a skinjob, an android who may or may not dream of electric sheep. Not only did the new anti-uplifting "unicorn" ending make it clear, but Mr. Scott said as much in a recent NY Times article, in case there was ever any speculation. This wasn't so apparent in the first edit, which makes Janet Maslin's statement in the original 1982 NY Times review commenting about Sean Young's replicant love interest, "the icy poised Rachel . . .seems a lot more expressive than Deckard", appear quaintly inaccurate, though who could blame her.

The first time I heard this theory was back in 1990 from an enthusiastic film geek who worked at LaserLand in Paoli, PA, from which we rented the Laserdisc for a college movie night at Villanova. He excitedly pointed out to us that Deckard was a "fake", and put the disc into one of their players, showing us Deckard's gleaming eyes in a freeze-frame pointing to it as the director's subtle hint. The guy may have been a little creepy (I also recall him preferring the saying that the term "letterbox" was created by those who had their "panties on too tight") but he turned out to be correct.

Overall, more than a few things seemed dated in the movie, but they were not without their charm, especially the boxy DeLorean-inspired flying cars and the giant-pixeled computer readouts. (To further suspend your disbelief, I guess you could just assume that the chosen few took the good technology with them to the Off-World colonies.) Several things you couldn't get away with today, particularly the minimalist opening credits (white letters on a black background) and the deliberate pacing. Rutger Hauer's performance as android Roy Batty seemed even larger than life on the big screen; punctuated by great facial expressions and reactions, he was ironically the most lifelike character in the movie.

Thankfully, we have a long way to go to get L.A. that screwed up; however, one future vision that they did get right: there are giant pervasive advertisements everywhere, something that's bound to get worse as we approach 2019. My biggest gripe is with the advances in technology featured that didn't seem impossible 25 years ago, but are laughable now; we've been spending all of our time and energy working on consumer technology to create bigger and better flat panel TVs to keep us dumb and stupid, when all this time we really should have been working on those flying cars.

IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE MOVIE, GO SEE IT BEFORE YOU CLICK ON THE CLIP BELOW.

WORST. ENDING. EVER

3:10 to Yuma. No spoilers.

Obviously with no spoilers, this post can't go too far. The movie was beautifully shot and quite good up until the craptacular cinematical climax. And this isn't my American sensitivities speaking...it's not about good or bad winning or losing...it was just stupid. I'll have to read the original short story by Elmore Leonard to see if the story has always had this fucked up ending.

It's a shame, because I did like the film, up to that point.

Just an interesting aside: I watched The Magnificent Seven the other day and the lead, Yul Brynner, was sporting a significant Russian accent...in 1960!! But come 2007, we have to an Aussie fake an American accent in the lead. What gives? I was thinking about it and I don't think that foreign accents would have been that strange in the West during the late 19th and early 20th century. What with all the immigrants moving West to strike it rich.

INDIANA JEFF AND THE BLOG OF DOOM

Although I'm a bit of a geek at times, I don't think I'm a "fanboy" of anything. I would never buy any Apple products or Star Trek box sets, and I hate Star Wars geeks almost as much as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog does. But I'm going to admit something: I'm really psyched for the new Indiana Jones movie.

Filming of the 4th Indiana Jones movie is underway, and it just so happens that this week Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford themselves are filming a scene from the movie in New Haven, Connecticut, in and around the Yale University campus. The movie is set in 1957, and they've spared no expense and dressed up a couple of blocks with old cars and vintage accessories to make it look authentic. SPOILER ALERT: they're filming a motorcycle chase scene. But since every Indy movie so far has had a motorcycle chase scene, that's not really much of a spoiler. As much as I'd like to go check it out, sites like the Indiana Jones 4 - Movie Chronicles save me from having to go there myself. Although maybe Spielberg himself will see me, and say, "My good man, I like the cut of your jib, how would you like to be in MOTION PICTURES? Harrison, hit the bricks, we have a new Indy!" Uhm, probably not.

After a 19 year absence it should be interesting to see 64 year old Harrison Ford reprise this role, even if it will be a bit like watching my dad running around fighting Nazis. (However, he looks pretty damn good in this picture.) The original was released 26 years ago and just happens to be my favorite movie, so you can pencil me in to see this in May 2008. There's no way it can live up to the original, but hopefully it will be more Last Crusade, less Temple of Doom. Although Spielberg has a decent track record, after the unwatchable trilogy of crap that was those new Star Wars movies, I just hope Lucas doesn't fudge this up.

So does it make me a "fanboy" because I want to see a sequel to one of the greatest action movies of all-time (and AFI's 60th best American movie)? I don't even know what that word even means; it's just another convenient and handy label, as people can use this to immediately jump to conclusions about you and ridicule you. I suppose it's not enough to just be a "fan" anymore, you have to do it to the EXTREME: blogs, websites, fan fiction, forums, ad nauseum.

But unlike most of these young whippersnapper fans who were weined on the DVD box set, or forced to like the movie by their parents, I saw the original in the movie theater more times that I can count. And of course, I did dress up as Indiana Jones for Halloween. Okay, so maybe I AM a Indy fanboy geek nerd. Look out, it's INDIANA JEFF!

TRAILERS FROM HELL

See the world famous Eye-Opener blog for this post.

YOUR SCI-FI FUTURE TIMELINE

Not only does science fiction entertain us, it informs us.

It all started with 1902's Le Voyage dans la lune (Trip To The Moon), a 14 minute black & white silent film that sagely predicted our setting foot on the Earth's lone rocky satellite. Not only was this 67 years ahead of time, it was stunningly accurate; from the beautiful women on the launch pad to the Moon inhabitants who would explode by the mere touch of an umbrella. Since then, author George Orwell predicted Big Brother (a crappy reality show now exists by that name) in his futuristic Nineteen Eighty-Four, featuring a bleak, totalitarian government highlighted by "Thought-Crimes", sexual repression, and blind nationalism--which is known today as "The Reagan Years".

So what does the future hold? Why, we only need look at the future timeline according to sci-fi! (I included the first three to show you just how scary accurate sci-fi can be.)

1999 - Due to his winning an Academy Award for his portrayal as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood, 5 years later Martin Landau is trusted to run Moonbase Alpha. When the Moon is knocked out of orbit by a nuclear explosion, his movie career subsequently suffers.

2000 - Smellevision replaces television.

2001 - During the first manned space flight to Jupiter, glitches in the advanced HAL 9000 software causes massive system failure. Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, responsible for glitches in Windows 2000 software, denies involvement during the odyssey.

2010 - In "The Year We Make Contact", somehow the Russians, who can't produce a working toaster, have developed the fastest spaceship known to man. HAL 9000 returns in an upgraded form ($199 with proof of ownership of any of the previous HAL versions) as HAL 9000 Service Pack 2.

2015 - Before heeding Huey Lewis' advice and going "Back In Time", Marty McFly discovers that the hoverboard is all the rage in Hill Valley, a Pepsi costs $50, and the Chicago Cubs finally win the World Series.

2019 - A bleak, dreary Los Angeles becomes overrun with rogue replicants, genetically manufactured humanoids initially created for slave labor in the "off-world" colonies, who rebel to survive in the brutal dystopian world of show business.

2032 - After a massive earthquake hits California in 2010, the utopic megalopolis of San Angeles is created from the ruins of San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. In this soul-crushingly cheery society, Sly Stallone and Wesley Snipes are mistaken for action movie stars, and Denis Leary is forced to take his ranting comedy stylings underground.

2084 - Former California Governor Schwarzenegger discovers mutants on a Mars colony including Sharon Stone who, despite being 126 years old, still looks like she's in her 30s. Oh, the horror.

2200 - Quantum mechanics are among those that visit the Forbidden Planet, where Leslie Nielsen finds an even more forbidden 19 year old hot chick.

2540 - It is a Brave New World, in which poverty and warfare are eliminated, and everyone lives in a happy, hedonistic society filled with rampant sex and drug use. Too bad I won't be around for this one, because it sounds fantastic. The first guy that calls this "dystopian" is getting punched in the face.

3000 - In the not-too-distant future, conflicts between the upper management of the Gizmonic Institute and employee Joel Robinson result in his being relocated to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit. During his tenure aboard the "Satellite of Love", psychological tests were performed to monitor his reactions to substandard motion pictures; the creative and witty Mr. Robinson built robotic cohabitants to keep him company before escaping 6 years later.

I should repeat to myself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax." If only I could.